===========================================================Fucking hysterical, right duke32? Sorry, I meant 'duke lebourgeois'?Erm, "Earl Weber"?There are more where that came from. Would you like another tripdown memory lane?Or two?

Let's have a whole bunch of them!

I was reading threads from back in 2001, which was apparently after he'dalready doxxed the innocent children of some of the others in the group.

Why would parents publish such information on the internet? That sounds likewhere the doxxing took place.

What was your purpose in digging up such informationabout your enemies' children and bringing it to usenet?

I didn't "look" it up. The dummy enemies posted it for all to see.

You mean, they posted links to web pages about their kidsto the ng, and said 'go to this site and see my kids' ?!?

Themselves and the kids nicknames only. And a couple of somewhat shady issues.

.> >You lost your account over links that others posted?.> Nope, because I was a good Catholic telling truth to Catholic bashers.Not even trying to hide the lies: no one loses an account for anythinglike that.

So you didn't know that, early on, Compuserve was so strict that monitors wouldthreaten you for even hinting at bad word or thought in discussion. Theyrequired the most purest of discussions or you were kicked off.

==========================================================> > >> >> >> >> >>Fucking hysterical, right duke32? Sorry, I meant 'duke lebourgeois'?Erm, "Earl Weber"?There are more where that came from. Would you like another tripdown memory lane?Or two?

Let's have a whole bunch of them!

I was reading threads from back in 2001, which was apparently after he'dalready doxxed the innocent children of some of the others in the group.

Why would parents publish such information on the internet? That sounds likewhere the doxxing took place.

What was your purpose in digging up such informationabout your enemies' children and bringing it to usenet?

I didn't "look" it up. The dummy enemies posted it for all to see.

You mean, they posted links to web pages about their kidsto the ng, and said 'go to this site and see my kids' ?!?

Themselves and the kids nicknames only. And a couple of somewhat shady issues.

.> >You lost your account over links that others posted?.> Nope, because I was a good Catholic telling truth to Catholic bashers.Not even trying to hide the lies: no one loses an account for anythinglike that.

So you didn't know that, early on, Compuserve was so strict that monitors wouldthreaten you for even hinting at bad word or thought in discussion. Theyrequired the most purest of discussions or you were kicked off.

IIRC, you were kicked off SBC. Did they have a rule intheir TOS that "a good Catholic telling truth to Catholicbashers is STRICTLY PROHIBITED"? Or are you lying on thenewsgroup again.

No, but they did that.

Then what did SBC close your account for? Did they nottell you?

,> > You see what truth does. I never have to worry abut,> > what I said because I never change my stories in lies like you do.,> Yes you did change your stories. For example you claimed,> you were an engineer, then you said you never claimed you,> were an engineer, and now you claim you're an engineer,> again.

.> > And he claimed that he worked on the pilot-killing jet engine, the TF30.> > But this is too much fun: Engines: TF-30, J57, developmental stuff.> > Aircraft: A-7, S-3, 747 (commercial).> > Missle: Scout.> > Say "thanks duke.".> > And again:.> > That was me, duke, that helped design the TF30..> > Except when he didn't:.> > BTW, it's YOUR story about the TF30, an engine that I never worked on..> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/kc6TGfiYxzI/0_SkhZHxsgEJ.> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/pbDPiw17iEs/191ztotmdWwJ.> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/H-FvtuPvlMo/FI2byRrg8QsJ

AA

.> Nice work, AA!.> I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.

Actually, I wonder if he's the one who put "prat" in Pratt & Whitney...

Post by Atlatl Axolotl.> Nice work, AA!.> I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.Actually, I wonder if he's the one who put "prat" in Pratt & Whitney...(don't bother trying to explain British slang to Earl)AA

I worked for P&W. You didn't. What are you trying to say?

the dukester, American-American

*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.

.> >Actually, I wonder if he's the one who put "prat" in Pratt & Whitney....> >(don't bother trying to explain British slang to Earl).> >AA.> I worked for P&W. You didn't. What are you trying to say?

My *goodness* but a lot of what I wrote fell right off your reply.

Let's see if we can fix that, OK?

| And he claimed that he worked on the pilot-killing jet engine, the TF30

| But this is too much fun: Engines: TF-30, J57, developmental stuff| Aircraft: A-7, S-3, 747 (commercial)| Missle: Scout| Say "thanks duke."||| And again:|| That was me, duke, that helped design the TF30.||| Except when he didn't:|| BTW, it's YOUR story about the TF30, an engine that I never worked on.|||| https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/kc6TGfiYxzI/0_SkhZHxsgEJ| https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/pbDPiw17iEs/191ztotmdWwJ| https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/H-FvtuPvlMo/FI2byRrg8QsJ|

.> >Actually, I wonder if he's the one who put "prat" in Pratt & Whitney....> >(don't bother trying to explain British slang to Earl).> >AA.> I worked for P&W. You didn't. What are you trying to say?My *goodness* but a lot of what I wrote fell right off your reply.Let's see if we can fix that, OK?

Waiting. You have too much toxic on the brain.

the dukester, American-American

*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.

++ And he claimed that he worked on the pilot-killing jet engine, the TF30

++ But this is too much fun: Engines: TF-30, J57, developmental stuff++ Aircraft: A-7, S-3, 747 (commercial)++ Missle: Scout++ Say "thanks duke."++++++ And again:++++ That was me, duke, that helped design the TF30.++++++ Except when he didn't:++++ BTW, it's YOUR story about the TF30, an engine that I never worked on.++++++++ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/kc6TGfiYxzI/0_SkhZHxsgEJ++ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/pbDPiw17iEs/191ztotmdWwJ++ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/H-FvtuPvlMo/FI2byRrg8QsJ++

Now you go right ahead and have your snippity snippity fun, Earl.But the net never forgets.

.> >Actually, I wonder if he's the one who put "prat" in Pratt & Whitney....> >(don't bother trying to explain British slang to Earl).> >AA.> I worked for P&W. You didn't. What are you trying to say?

.> >My *goodness* but a lot of what I wrote fell right off your reply..> >Let's see if we can fix that, OK?.> Waiting. You have too much toxic on the brain.My goodness gracious -- when Earl pointedly snips out somethingtwice, it's proof he doesn't want anyone seeing it.

They saw it before.

Post by Atlatl Axolotl++ And he claimed that he worked on the pilot-killing jet engine, the TF30++ But this is too much fun: Engines: TF-30, J57, developmental stuff++ Aircraft: A-7, S-3, 747 (commercial)++ Missle: Scout++ Say "thanks duke."++++++++ That was me, duke, that helped design the TF30.++++++++ BTW, it's YOUR story about the TF30, an engine that I never worked on.Now you go right ahead and have your snippity snippity fun, Earl.But the net never forgets.

Your sugar-frosted still won't let you understand. I never worked on the TF-30,but I helped design it.

Stupid kid.

the dukester, American-American

*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.

Post by Atlatl Axolotl.> >> Your sugar-frosted still won't let you understand. I never worked on the TF-30,But this is too much fun: Engines: TF-30, J57, developmental stuffAircraft: A-7, S-3, 747 (commercial)Missle: ScoutSay "thanks duke."If you really worked on the above...Oh, I did, I definitely did.

(Developmental stuff).

the dukester, American-American

*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.

Post by dukeYour sugar-frosted still won't let you understand. I never worked on the TF-30,but I helped design it.

Doesn't design count as work? Or did you scribble something on yellowconstruction paper with a black crayon and offer it to the realengineers for free?

Test engineers don't design.

They don't, in any fashion?

Not usually the products they're testing. You people are so simple minded thatyou just can't grasp the concept of design of support equipment "used intesting".

I don't think I ever actually worked on the TF30 itself, but possible I did on atest rig. That' was the design group I was assigned to. It hard to rememberwhat was the use of some ancillary designs I worked on.

That's doesn't eliminate that pilot design was likely a reason for bdk'scousin's life.

the dukester, American-American

*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.

Post by dukeYour sugar-frosted still won't let you understand. I never worked on the TF-30,but I helped design it.

Doesn't design count as work? Or did you scribble something on yellowconstruction paper with a black crayon and offer it to the realengineers for free?

Test engineers don't design.

They don't, in any fashion?

Not usually the products they're testing. You people are so simple minded thatyou just can't grasp the concept of design of support equipment "used intesting".I don't think I ever actually worked on the TF30 itself, but possible I did on atest rig. That' was the design group I was assigned to. It hard to rememberwhat was the use of some ancillary designs I worked on.

.> That's doesn't eliminate that pilot design was likely a reason for bdk's.> cousin's life.

And that "doesn't eliminate" the fact that when someone informed youof his cousin's death, you immediately mocked him.

Post by dukeYour sugar-frosted still won't let you understand. I never worked on the TF-30,but I helped design it.

Doesn't design count as work? Or did you scribble something on yellowconstruction paper with a black crayon and offer it to the realengineers for free?

Test engineers don't design.

What about the test? Do they design that, or do they just get it passeddown from some mythical First Engineer in the distant past?

An engine type takes dozens and dozens of engineers at work. Some structural,wiring, some piping, some heat design, some bearing housing, some blade design,some cooling design, some combustion chamber design, some redesign of thingsthat didn't pan out, like a rotor crack, etc.

You simple minded people just don't get it.

the dukester, American-American

*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.

Post by Atlatl Axolotl.> Nice work, AA!.> I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.Actually, I wonder if he's the one who put "prat" in Pratt & Whitney...(don't bother trying to explain British slang to Earl)AA

I worked for P&W. You didn't. What are you trying to say?the dukester, American-American

Post by Atlatl Axolotl.> Nice work, AA!.> I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.Actually, I wonder if he's the one who put "prat" in Pratt & Whitney...(don't bother trying to explain British slang to Earl)AA

I worked for P&W. You didn't. What are you trying to say?

How long did you work there before you were revealed as a fraud?

Ask toxic what his problem is?

the dukester, American-American

*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.

===========================================================Fucking hysterical, right duke32? Sorry, I meant 'duke lebourgeois'? Erm, "Earl Weber"?There are more where that came from. Would you like another tripdown memory lane?Or two?

Let's have a whole bunch of them!

I was reading threads from back in 2001, which was apparently after he'dalready doxxed the innocent children of some of the others in the group.

Why would parents publish such information on the internet? That sounds likewhere the doxxing took place.

What was your purpose in digging up such informationabout your enemies' children and bringing it to usenet?

I didn't "look" it up. The dummy enemies posted it for all to see.

You mean, they posted links to web pages about their kidsto the ng, and said 'go to this site and see my kids' ?!?

Themselves and the kids nicknames only. And a couple of somewhat shady issues.

.> >You lost your account over links that others posted?.> Nope, because I was a good Catholic telling truth to Catholic bashers.Not even trying to hide the lies: no one loses an account for anythinglike that.

So you didn't know that, early on, Compuserve was so strict that monitors wouldthreaten you for even hinting at bad word or thought in discussion. Theyrequired the most purest of discussions or you were kicked off.

So you didn't know that, early on, Compuserve was so strict that monitors wouldthreaten you for even hinting at bad word or thought in discussion. Theyrequired the most purest of discussions or you were kicked off.

So you didn't know that, early on, Compuserve was so strict that monitors wouldthreaten you for even hinting at bad word or thought in discussion. Theyrequired the most purest of discussions or you were kicked off.

Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, northof 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up inthe job interview.

A jet engine has high velocity rotation.

Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?

Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?

.> > What does fps rotation mean?

.> > .> It must mean the instantaneous velocity at the center of.> > .> the circle. :).> > That's the Earl-centric coordinate system, I assume?.> Aren't we so blessed to be able to live in the same.> universe that revolves at high velocity around Earl?

Not sure -- we need to get a pail of water and see if it'sdepressed in the middle.

If it is, the Earl-centric system is a non-inertial one, andnon-inertial coordinate systems are a bitch.

Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, northof 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up inthe job interview.

A jet engine has high velocity rotation.

Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?

Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?

.> > What does fps rotation mean?

.> > .> It must mean the instantaneous velocity at the center of.> > .> the circle. :).> > That's the Earl-centric coordinate system, I assume?.> Aren't we so blessed to be able to live in the same.> universe that revolves at high velocity around Earl?Not sure -- we need to get a pail of water and see if it'sdepressed in the middle.If it is, the Earl-centric system is a non-inertial one, andnon-inertial coordinate systems are a bitch.

You girls have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

the dukester, American-American

*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.

Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, northof 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up inthe job interview.

A jet engine has high velocity rotation.

Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?

Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?

.> > What does fps rotation mean?

.> > .> It must mean the instantaneous velocity at the center of.> > .> the circle. :).> > That's the Earl-centric coordinate system, I assume?.> Aren't we so blessed to be able to live in the same.> universe that revolves at high velocity around Earl?Not sure -- we need to get a pail of water and see if it'sdepressed in the middle.If it is, the Earl-centric system is a non-inertial one, andnon-inertial coordinate systems are a bitch.

You girls have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.the dukester, American-American

Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, northof 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up inthe job interview.

A jet engine has high velocity rotation.

Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?

Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?

.> > What does fps rotation mean?

.> > .> It must mean the instantaneous velocity at the center of.> > .> the circle. :).> > That's the Earl-centric coordinate system, I assume?.> Aren't we so blessed to be able to live in the same.> universe that revolves at high velocity around Earl?

.> >> Not sure -- we need to get a pail of water and see if it's.> >> depressed in the middle..> >> If it is, the Earl-centric system is a non-inertial one, and.> >> non-inertial coordinate systems are a bitch..> > You girls have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, northof 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up inthe job interview.

A jet engine has high velocity rotation.

Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?

Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?

.> > What does fps rotation mean?

.> > .> It must mean the instantaneous velocity at the center of.> > .> the circle. :).> > That's the Earl-centric coordinate system, I assume?.> Aren't we so blessed to be able to live in the same.> universe that revolves at high velocity around Earl?

.> >> Not sure -- we need to get a pail of water and see if it's.> >> depressed in the middle..> >> If it is, the Earl-centric system is a non-inertial one, and.> >> non-inertial coordinate systems are a bitch..> > You girls have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, northof 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up inthe job interview.

A jet engine has high velocity rotation.

Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?

Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?

.> > What does fps rotation mean?

.> > .> It must mean the instantaneous velocity at the center of.> > .> the circle. :).> > That's the Earl-centric coordinate system, I assume?.> Aren't we so blessed to be able to live in the same.> universe that revolves at high velocity around Earl?

.> >> Not sure -- we need to get a pail of water and see if it's.> >> depressed in the middle..> >> If it is, the Earl-centric system is a non-inertial one, and.> >> non-inertial coordinate systems are a bitch..> > You girls have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.

You are 100% false. The same side of the moon alwaysfaces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!

The moon's period of rotation is equal to the period ofrevolution about the earth. They are in tidal sync. Oneto one. Which means the motion of the moon with respectto the earth is the same as the motion of the ball on astring WRT the swinger, aside from minor differences thatare over your head.

Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.

You are 100% false. The same side of the moon alwaysfaces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!

If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. Andguess what - no strings attached.

Post by Peter PanThe moon's period of rotation is equal to the period ofrevolution about the earth. They are in tidal sync. Oneto one. Which means the motion of the moon with respectto the earth is the same as the motion of the ball on astring WRT the swinger, aside from minor differences thatare over your head.They both rotate, duke.The Dark Side of the Moon isn't just for ganga tokers.

the dukester, American-American

*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.

Post by Peter PanThe moon's period of rotation is equal to the period ofrevolution about the earth. They are in tidal sync. Oneto one. Which means the motion of the moon with respectto the earth is the same as the motion of the ball on astring WRT the swinger, aside from minor differences thatare over your head.They both rotate, duke.The Dark Side of the Moon isn't just for ganga tokers.

Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.

You are 100% false. The same side of the moon alwaysfaces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!

If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. Andguess what - no strings attached.

And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.If you were an engineer, you would get it.

.> A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.

Specify for us the rotation vectors of the Moon.

AA

Post by dukeIf the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is therotation them. Would it start spinning at the break? Conservation of energyand all that.the dukester, American-American*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.*****

Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.

You are 100% false. The same side of the moon alwaysfaces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!

If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. Andguess what - no strings attached.

And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.If you were an engineer, you would get it.

.> A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.Specify for us the rotation vectors of the Moon.

Toxic, do you by any chance understand what a rotating object is doing? LIke,just pretend you can engage your brain and visualize a rotating object. Do youunderstand now?

A turbine shaft/rotor rotates around it's own cg on bearings front and back.A car tire rotates around it's own cg..A child's toy "top" rotates around it's own cg.A thrown baseball rotates around it's own cg..A golf ball hits and rolls around it's own cg.The earth rotates around it's own cg.The moon rotates around it's own cg.

Is lesson one (1), so far, finally starting to sink in?

the dukester, American-American

*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.

Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.

You are 100% false. The same side of the moon alwaysfaces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!

If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. Andguess what - no strings attached.

And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.If you were an engineer, you would get it.

.> A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.Specify for us the rotation vectors of the Moon.

Toxic, do you by any chance understand what a rotating object is doing? LIke,just pretend you can engage your brain and visualize a rotating object. Do youunderstand now?A turbine shaft/rotor rotates around it's own cg on bearings front and back.A car tire rotates around it's own cg..A child's toy "top" rotates around it's own cg.A thrown baseball rotates around it's own cg..A golf ball hits and rolls around it's own cg.The earth rotates around it's own cg.The moon rotates around it's own cg.

Interesting. So the center of gravity of a rotating object is its axis of rotation?

Thanks.

Marvin Sebourn

Post by dukeIs lesson one (1), so far, finally starting to sink in?the dukester, American-American*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.*****

Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector,northof 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped himup inthe job interview.

A jet engine has high velocity rotation.

Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?

Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?

A ball on a string has none.

Then the moon must not rotate either, right?

Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling ofthe earth.

You are 100% false. The same side of the moon alwaysfaces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!

If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions ofyears. Andguess what - no strings attached.

And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.If you were an engineer, you would get it.

.> A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.Specify for us the rotation vectors of the Moon.

Toxic, do you by any chance understand what a rotating object is doing?LIke,just pretend you can engage your brain and visualize a rotating object. Doyouunderstand now?A turbine shaft/rotor rotates around it's own cg on bearings front and back.A car tire rotates around it's own cg..A child's toy "top" rotates around it's own cg.A thrown baseball rotates around it's own cg..A golf ball hits and rolls around it's own cg.The earth rotates around it's own cg.The moon rotates around it's own cg.

Interesting. So the center of gravity of a rotating object is its axis of rotation?Thanks.

Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector,northof 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped himup inthe job interview.

A jet engine has high velocity rotation.

Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?

Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?

A ball on a string has none.

Then the moon must not rotate either, right?

Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling ofthe earth.

You are 100% false. The same side of the moon alwaysfaces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!

If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions ofyears. Andguess what - no strings attached.

And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.If you were an engineer, you would get it.

.> A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.Specify for us the rotation vectors of the Moon.

Toxic, do you by any chance understand what a rotating object is doing?LIke,just pretend you can engage your brain and visualize a rotating object. Doyouunderstand now?A turbine shaft/rotor rotates around it's own cg on bearings front and back.A car tire rotates around it's own cg..A child's toy "top" rotates around it's own cg.A thrown baseball rotates around it's own cg..A golf ball hits and rolls around it's own cg.The earth rotates around it's own cg.The moon rotates around it's own cg.

Interesting. So the center of gravity of a rotating object is its axis of rotation?Thanks.

So Duke does not know where the moons center of gravity is? Figures.

Amazing deduction. Just how stupid can one person turn out to be.

the dukester, American-American

*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.

Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.

You are 100% false. The same side of the moon alwaysfaces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!

If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. Andguess what - no strings attached.

And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.If you were an engineer, you would get it.

.> A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.Specify for us the rotation vectors of the Moon.

Toxic, do you by any chance understand what a rotating object is doing? LIke,just pretend you can engage your brain and visualize a rotating object. Do youunderstand now?A turbine shaft/rotor rotates around it's own cg on bearings front and back.A car tire rotates around it's own cg..A child's toy "top" rotates around it's own cg.A thrown baseball rotates around it's own cg..A golf ball hits and rolls around it's own cg.The earth rotates around it's own cg.The moon rotates around it's own cg.

Interesting. So the center of gravity of a rotating object is its axis of rotation?

And to think you never even knew this. Please pass it on to teresita, toxic,gman, peanut and company. They are in need of some serious knowledge aboutrotation.

Of course, in their crude way, they'll ask about throwing a sledge hammer and ofthat's "rotation"..

the dukester, American-American

*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.

Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.

You are 100% false. The same side of the moon alwaysfaces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!

If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. Andguess what - no strings attached.

And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.If you were an engineer, you would get it.

.> A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.Specify for us the rotation vectors of the Moon.

Toxic, do you by any chance understand what a rotating object is doing? LIke,just pretend you can engage your brain and visualize a rotating object. Do youunderstand now?A turbine shaft/rotor rotates around it's own cg on bearings front and back.A car tire rotates around it's own cg..A child's toy "top" rotates around it's own cg.A thrown baseball rotates around it's own cg..A golf ball hits and rolls around it's own cg.The earth rotates around it's own cg.The moon rotates around it's own cg.

Interesting. So the center of gravity of a rotating object is its axis of rotation?

And to think you never even knew this.

Extremely poor reading comprehension, Duke. I didn't say that I didn't know, or not know, that "the center of gravity of a rotating object is its axis of rotation". I asked you if that was what you meant.

To paraphrase Joe Bruno: "YOU CAN"T READ! DAMN YOU"RE STUPID"!

And as far as rotation not about the center of gravity, look up "eccentric rotation".

And listen to AA, or Harry, or Sam, or Teresita and learn about earth and lunar rotation. And many others here. Linux Girl might help you, if she were here. Or Don Martin, or ALex, or a score of others here.

Post by dukePlease pass it on to teresita, toxic,gman, peanut and company. They are in need of some serious knowledge aboutrotation.

I will by posting this. If they read it, it should afford them much amusement. No real knowledge, but much amusement.

Marvin Sebourn

Post by dukeOf course, in their crude way, they'll ask about throwing a sledge hammer and ofthat's "rotation"..the dukester, American-American*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.*****

Post by dukeBecause it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on theground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles theearth.

So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately winddown the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?

With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachmentbecomes the string to the earth.

If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that makeit different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball isattached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?

Post by dukeBecause it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on theground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles theearth.

So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately winddown the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?

With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachmentbecomes the string to the earth.

If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that makeit different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball isattached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?

Good grief, but you're ignorant. Let me guess. You think the moon string isjust flapping in the breeze on the earth end.

the dukester, American-American

*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.

Post by dukeBecause it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on theground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles theearth.

So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately winddown the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?

With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachmentbecomes the string to the earth.

.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.

Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"

AA

. Let me guess. You think the moon string isjust flapping in the breeze on the earth end.the dukester, American-American*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.*****

Post by dukeBecause it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on theground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles theearth.

So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately winddown the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?

With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachmentbecomes the string to the earth.

.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"

If Duke claimed that the Moon did NOT rotate, then I'd understand thathe was using a reference frame that was rotating, and he'd have a(astonishingly weak) case. But he asserts the Moon DOES rotate, and aball on a string does NOT. And I'm the ignorant one, he says.

Post by dukeBecause it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on theground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles theearth.

So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately winddown the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?

With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachmentbecomes the string to the earth.

.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"

If Duke claimed that the Moon did NOT rotate, then I'd understand thathe was using a reference frame that was rotating, and he'd have a(astonishingly weak) case. But he asserts the Moon DOES rotate, and aball on a string does NOT. And I'm the ignorant one, he says.

I was going to write a little joke here about Euclidean geometry,non-Euclidean according to Lovecraft, and Weberian geometry. So Iwanted to get my facts straight and I googled "types of geometry".

I'd never even heard of taxicab geometry, and I didn't know if anyoneelse here had, but check this out:

"Taxicab geometry can be used to assess the differences in discretefrequency distributions. For example, in RNA splicing positionaldistributions of hexamers, which plot the probability of each hexamerappearing at each given nucleotide near a splice site, can be comparedwith L1-distance. Each position distribution can be represented as avector where each entry represents the likelihood of the hexamerstarting at a certain nucleotide. A large L1-distance between the twovectors indicates a significant difference in the nature of thedistributions while a small distance denotes similarly shapeddistributions. This is equivalent to measuring the area between thetwo distribution curves because the area of each segment is theabsolute difference between the two curves' likelihoods at that point.When summed together for all segments, it provides the same measure asL1-distance."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry

I know it's geeky, but it's pretty damn cool regardless.

--Cheers,DreamerAA 2306

"If God listened to the prayers of men, all men would quickly haveperished: for they are forever praying for evil against one another."

Post by dukeBecause it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on theground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles theearth.

So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately winddown the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?

With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachmentbecomes the string to the earth.

.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"

If Duke claimed that the Moon did NOT rotate, then I'd understand thathe was using a reference frame that was rotating, and he'd have a(astonishingly weak) case. But he asserts the Moon DOES rotate, and aball on a string does NOT. And I'm the ignorant one, he says.

I was going to write a little joke here about Euclidean geometry,non-Euclidean according to Lovecraft, and Weberian geometry. So Iwanted to get my facts straight and I googled "types of geometry".I'd never even heard of taxicab geometry, and I didn't know if anyone"Taxicab geometry can be used to assess the differences in discretefrequency distributions. For example, in RNA splicing positionaldistributions of hexamers, which plot the probability of each hexamerappearing at each given nucleotide near a splice site, can be comparedwith L1-distance. Each position distribution can be represented as avector where each entry represents the likelihood of the hexamerstarting at a certain nucleotide. A large L1-distance between the twovectors indicates a significant difference in the nature of thedistributions while a small distance denotes similarly shapeddistributions. This is equivalent to measuring the area between thetwo distribution curves because the area of each segment is theabsolute difference between the two curves' likelihoods at that point.When summed together for all segments, it provides the same measure asL1-distance."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometryI know it's geeky, but it's pretty damn cool regardless.

Trying to act important?

the dukester, American-American

*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.

Post by dukeBecause it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on theground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles theearth.

So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately winddown the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?

With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachmentbecomes the string to the earth.

.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"

If Duke claimed that the Moon did NOT rotate, then I'd understand thathe was using a reference frame that was rotating, and he'd have a(astonishingly weak) case. But he asserts the Moon DOES rotate, and aball on a string does NOT. And I'm the ignorant one, he says.

I was going to write a little joke here about Euclidean geometry,non-Euclidean according to Lovecraft, and Weberian geometry. So Iwanted to get my facts straight and I googled "types of geometry".I'd never even heard of taxicab geometry, and I didn't know if anyone"Taxicab geometry can be used to assess the differences in discretefrequency distributions. For example, in RNA splicing positionaldistributions of hexamers, which plot the probability of each hexamerappearing at each given nucleotide near a splice site, can be comparedwith L1-distance. Each position distribution can be represented as avector where each entry represents the likelihood of the hexamerstarting at a certain nucleotide. A large L1-distance between the twovectors indicates a significant difference in the nature of thedistributions while a small distance denotes similarly shapeddistributions. This is equivalent to measuring the area between thetwo distribution curves because the area of each segment is theabsolute difference between the two curves' likelihoods at that point.When summed together for all segments, it provides the same measure asL1-distance."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometryI know it's geeky, but it's pretty damn cool regardless.

Geeky? But definitely good-geeky, Dreamer, though maybe another over the head whooshie for some. Guess who?

Great to to see you here. Always good stuff from you.

Best regards, Marvin

Marvin Sebourn

Post by Dreamer In Colore--Cheers,DreamerAA 2306"If God listened to the prayers of men, all men would quickly haveperished: for they are forever praying for evil against one another."Epicurus

Post by dukeBecause it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on theground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles theearth.

So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately winddown the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?

With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachmentbecomes the string to the earth.

.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"

If Duke claimed that the Moon did NOT rotate, then I'd understand thathe was using a reference frame that was rotating, and he'd have a(astonishingly weak) case. But he asserts the Moon DOES rotate, and aball on a string does NOT. And I'm the ignorant one, he says.

I was going to write a little joke here about Euclidean geometry,non-Euclidean according to Lovecraft, and Weberian geometry. So Iwanted to get my facts straight and I googled "types of geometry".I'd never even heard of taxicab geometry, and I didn't know if anyone"Taxicab geometry can be used to assess the differences in discretefrequency distributions. For example, in RNA splicing positionaldistributions of hexamers, which plot the probability of each hexamerappearing at each given nucleotide near a splice site, can be comparedwith L1-distance. Each position distribution can be represented as avector where each entry represents the likelihood of the hexamerstarting at a certain nucleotide. A large L1-distance between the twovectors indicates a significant difference in the nature of thedistributions while a small distance denotes similarly shapeddistributions. This is equivalent to measuring the area between thetwo distribution curves because the area of each segment is theabsolute difference between the two curves' likelihoods at that point.When summed together for all segments, it provides the same measure asL1-distance."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometryI know it's geeky, but it's pretty damn cool regardless.

Geeky? But definitely good-geeky, Dreamer, though maybe another over the head whooshie for some. Guess who?Great to to see you here. Always good stuff from you.

Post by dukeBecause it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on theground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles theearth.

So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately winddown the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?

With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachmentbecomes the string to the earth.

.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"

If Duke claimed that the Moon did NOT rotate, then I'd understand thathe was using a reference frame that was rotating, and he'd have a(astonishingly weak) case. But he asserts the Moon DOES rotate, and aball on a string does NOT. And I'm the ignorant one, he says.

Absolutely. The moon is in synchronous rotation with the earth. That means themoon's same face is always looking at the earth, but the earth's face looking atthe moon is rotating round and round and round.

Stupid people have a hard time with that one.

the dukester, American-American

*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.

Post by dukeAbsolutely. The moon is in synchronous rotation with the earth. That means themoon's same face is always looking at the earth, but the earth's face looking atthe moon is rotating round and round and round.

The Earth's rotation is slowing down due to the friction that resultsfrom the moon's tides. This angular momentum is conserved in the radialdistance of the Moon's orbit, which pushes it away. All things beingequal, in a dozen or so billion years the Earth would be tidally lockedon the Moon, but that is not to be, since the sun will go red-giant andvaporize the Earth before then. I'll miss it. Maybe you'll see it fromyour cloud or some shit.

Post by dukeAbsolutely. The moon is in synchronous rotation with the earth. That means themoon's same face is always looking at the earth, but the earth's face looking atthe moon is rotating round and round and round.

The Earth's rotation is slowing down due to the friction that resultsfrom the moon's tides. This angular momentum is conserved in the radialdistance of the Moon's orbit, which pushes it away. All things beingequal, in a dozen or so billion years the Earth would be tidally lockedon the Moon, but that is not to be, since the sun will go red-giant andvaporize the Earth before then. I'll miss it. Maybe you'll see it fromyour cloud or some shit.

That's assuming his religion is true. But in that case, he'll be too deepin Hell to see anything.

Post by dukeAbsolutely. The moon is in synchronous rotation with the earth. That means themoon's same face is always looking at the earth, but the earth's face looking atthe moon is rotating round and round and round.

The Earth's rotation is slowing down due to the friction that resultsfrom the moon's tides. This angular momentum is conserved in the radialdistance of the Moon's orbit, which pushes it away. All things beingequal, in a dozen or so billion years the Earth would be tidally lockedon the Moon, but that is not to be, since the sun will go red-giant andvaporize the Earth before then. I'll miss it. Maybe you'll see it fromyour cloud or some shit.

.> That's assuming his religion is true. But in that case, he'll be too deep.> in Hell to see anything.

Post by dukeAbsolutely. The moon is in synchronous rotation with the earth. That means themoon's same face is always looking at the earth, but the earth's face looking atthe moon is rotating round and round and round.

The Earth's rotation is slowing down due to the friction that resultsfrom the moon's tides. This angular momentum is conserved in the radialdistance of the Moon's orbit, which pushes it away. All things beingequal, in a dozen or so billion years the Earth would be tidally lockedon the Moon, but that is not to be, since the sun will go red-giant andvaporize the Earth before then. I'll miss it. Maybe you'll see it fromyour cloud or some shit.

.> That's assuming his religion is true. But in that case, he'll be too deep.> in Hell to see anything.And won't even notice that inconvenient red giant thingie.AA

Or he'll call it something else. Like the ghosts in CS Lewis's "The GreatDivorce", Duke's head will still be firmly embedded in his ass.

Post by dukeAbsolutely. The moon is in synchronous rotation with the earth. That means themoon's same face is always looking at the earth, but the earth's face looking atthe moon is rotating round and round and round.

The Earth's rotation is slowing down due to the friction that resultsfrom the moon's tides. This angular momentum is conserved in the radialdistance of the Moon's orbit, which pushes it away. All things beingequal, in a dozen or so billion years the Earth would be tidally lockedon the Moon, but that is not to be, since the sun will go red-giant andvaporize the Earth before then. I'll miss it. Maybe you'll see it fromyour cloud or some shit.

.> > .> That's assuming his religion is true. But in that case, he'll be too deep.> > .> in Hell to see anything..> > And won't even notice that inconvenient red giant thingie.

AA

.> Or he'll call it something else. Like the ghosts in CS Lewis's "The Great.> Divorce", Duke's head will still be firmly embedded in his ass.

Post by dukeAbsolutely. The moon is in synchronous rotation with the earth. That means themoon's same face is always looking at the earth, but the earth's face looking atthe moon is rotating round and round and round.

The Earth's rotation is slowing down due to the friction that resultsfrom the moon's tides. This angular momentum is conserved in the radialdistance of the Moon's orbit, which pushes it away. All things beingequal, in a dozen or so billion years the Earth would be tidally lockedon the Moon, but that is not to be, since the sun will go red-giant andvaporize the Earth before then. I'll miss it. Maybe you'll see it fromyour cloud or some shit.

Gee, where are your plagiarizing attributes???

the dukester, American-American

*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.

Post by dukeAbsolutely. The moon is in synchronous rotation with the earth. That means themoon's same face is always looking at the earth, but the earth's face looking atthe moon is rotating round and round and round.

The Earth's rotation is slowing down due to the friction that resultsfrom the moon's tides. This angular momentum is conserved in the radialdistance of the Moon's orbit, which pushes it away. All things beingequal, in a dozen or so billion years the Earth would be tidally lockedon the Moon, but that is not to be, since the sun will go red-giant andvaporize the Earth before then. I'll miss it. Maybe you'll see it fromyour cloud or some shit.

Gee, where are your plagiarizing attributes???

Everything I write is original, every time, unless it isn't, in whichcase I will make the attribute and perhaps even a link. Every time.That you suspect I copied-and-pasted it from somewhere is a compliment,actually, but it is also a case of a liar assuming that everyone he liesto is also a liar.

The Earth's rotation is slowing down due to the friction that resultsfrom the moon's tides. This angular momentum is conserved in the radialdistance of the Moon's orbit, which pushes it away. All things beingequal, in a dozen or so billion years the Earth would be tidally lockedon the Moon, but that is not to be, since the sun will go

Post by dukeAbsolutely. The moon is in synchronous rotation with the earth. That means themoon's same face is always looking at the earth, but the earth's face looking atthe moon is rotating round and round and round.

The Earth's rotation is slowing down due to the friction that resultsfrom the moon's tides. This angular momentum is conserved in the radialdistance of the Moon's orbit, which pushes it away. All things beingequal, in a dozen or so billion years the Earth would be tidally lockedon the Moon, but that is not to be, since the sun will go red-giant andvaporize the Earth before then. I'll miss it. Maybe you'll see it fromyour cloud or some shit.

Gee, where are your plagiarizing attributes???

Everything I write is original, every time, unless it isn't, in whichcase I will make the attribute and perhaps even a link. Every time.That you suspect I copied-and-pasted it from somewhere is a compliment,actually, but it is also a case of a liar assuming that everyone he liesto is also a liar.

I don't trust your statements if they don't stand up to scrutiny either based onmy knowledge or my "research".

the dukester, American-American

*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.

Post by Atlatl Axolotl.> > I don't trust your statements if they don't stand up to scrutiny either based on.> > my knowledge or my "research"..> It is well that you put the word research in scare quotes.Sneer quotes.

My facts sneer at you.

the dukester, American-American

*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.

Post by dukeAbsolutely. The moon is in synchronous rotation with the earth. Thatmeans the moon's same face is always looking at the earth, but theearth's face looking at the moon is rotating round and round and round.

I love it when you use engineering talk.

I would have said, "The moon's rate of rotation is identical to its rateof revolution."

Post by dukeAbsolutely. The moon is in synchronous rotation with the earth. Thatmeans the moon's same face is always looking at the earth, but theearth's face looking at the moon is rotating round and round and round.

I love it when you use engineering talk.I would have said, "The moon's rate of rotation is identical to its rateof revolution."

The real explanation is tidal lock. Half the words and 10x the understanding.

the dukester, American-American

*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.

Post by dukeAbsolutely. The moon is in synchronous rotation with the earth. Thatmeans the moon's same face is always looking at the earth, but theearth's face looking at the moon is rotating round and round and round.

I love it when you use engineering talk.I would have said, "The moon's rate of rotation is identical to its rateof revolution."

The real explanation is tidal lock. Half the words and 10x the understanding.

Post by dukeAbsolutely. The moon is in synchronous rotation with the earth. Thatmeans the moon's same face is always looking at the earth, but theearth's face looking at the moon is rotating round and round and round.

I love it when you use engineering talk.I would have said, "The moon's rate of rotation is identical to its rateof revolution."

The real explanation is tidal lock. Half the words and 10x the understanding.

So tell me something, Mr. "I understand rotation of balls on strings".Tell me how the picture of the moon rotating around the earth here(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking) shows that the moon_doesn't_ rotate on its own axis.

Post by dukeAbsolutely. The moon is in synchronous rotation with the earth. Thatmeans the moon's same face is always looking at the earth, but theearth's face looking at the moon is rotating round and round and round.

I love it when you use engineering talk.I would have said, "The moon's rate of rotation is identical to its rateof revolution."

The real explanation is tidal lock. Half the words and 10x the understanding.

So tell me something, Mr. "I understand rotation of balls on strings".Tell me how the picture of the moon rotating around the earth here(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking) shows that the moon_doesn't_ rotate on its own axis.

Post by dukeAbsolutely. The moon is in synchronous rotation with the earth. Thatmeans the moon's same face is always looking at the earth, but theearth's face looking at the moon is rotating round and round and round.

I love it when you use engineering talk.I would have said, "The moon's rate of rotation is identical to its rateof revolution."

The real explanation is tidal lock. Half the words and 10x the understanding.

So tell me something, Mr. "I understand rotation of balls on strings".Tell me how the picture of the moon rotating around the earth here(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking) shows that the moon_doesn't_ rotate on its own axis.

Post by dukeBecause it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on theground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles theearth.

So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately winddown the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?

With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachmentbecomes the string to the earth.

.> > .> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make.> > .> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is.> > .> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?.> > .> Good grief, but you're ignorant..> > Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?).> > "I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?".> If Duke claimed that the Moon did NOT rotate, then I'd understand that.> he was using a reference frame that was rotating, and he'd have a.> (astonishingly weak) case. But he asserts the Moon DOES rotate, and a.> ball on a string does NOT. And I'm the ignorant one, he says.But if you look at it another way, maybe he's right.

I mean, consider: we all come here to play tetherball with Earl, right.He's the ball, and we slap him around and around the pole...and yet his head's not spinning.

OK, the more prosaic explanation is that his head's not spinningbecause everything we say about him goes right over his head.(I'm looking at you, Teresita) . Sort of like neutrinos passingthrough lead with zero interactions. So maybe his incomprehensionis why his head's not spinning.

Post by dukeBecause it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on theground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles theearth.

So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately winddown the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?

With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachmentbecomes the string to the earth.

.> > .> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make.> > .> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is.> > .> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?.> > .> Good grief, but you're ignorant..> > Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?).> > "I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?".> If Duke claimed that the Moon did NOT rotate, then I'd understand that.> he was using a reference frame that was rotating, and he'd have a.> (astonishingly weak) case. But he asserts the Moon DOES rotate, and a.> ball on a string does NOT. And I'm the ignorant one, he says.But if you look at it another way, maybe he's right.

I am right. After all, this ng of clowns is just now finding out the rotationis an action around a object's cg. Sheeze.

the dukester, American-American

*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.

Post by dukeBecause it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on theground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles theearth.

So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately winddown the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?

With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachmentbecomes the string to the earth.

.> > .> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make.> > .> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is.> > .> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?.> > .> Good grief, but you're ignorant..> > Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?).> > "I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"

.> >.> If Duke claimed that the Moon did NOT rotate, then I'd understand that.> >.> he was using a reference frame that was rotating, and he'd have a.> >.> (astonishingly weak) case. But he asserts the Moon DOES rotate, and a.> >.> ball on a string does NOT. And I'm the ignorant one, he says..> >But if you look at it another way, maybe he's right.

Oooh, look what Earl raced to snip out, lest the other see it and snicker.

Even more than usual.

+ But if you look at it another way, maybe he's right.

+ I mean, consider: we all come here to play tetherball with Earl, right.+ He's the ball, and we slap him around and around the pole...+ and yet his head's not spinning.

+ OK, the more prosaic explanation is that his head's not spinning+ because everything we say about him goes right over his head.+ (I'm looking at you, Teresita) . Sort of like neutrinos passing+ through lead with zero interactions. So maybe his incomprehension+ is why his head's not spinning.

AA

Post by dukeI am right. After all, this ng of clowns is just now finding out the rotationis an action around a object's cg. Sheeze.the dukester, American-American*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.*****

Post by dukeBecause it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on theground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles theearth.

So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately winddown the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?

With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachmentbecomes the string to the earth.

.> > .> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make.> > .> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is.> > .> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?.> > .> Good grief, but you're ignorant..> > Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?).> > "I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"

.> >.> If Duke claimed that the Moon did NOT rotate, then I'd understand that.> >.> he was using a reference frame that was rotating, and he'd have a.> >.> (astonishingly weak) case. But he asserts the Moon DOES rotate, and a.> >.> ball on a string does NOT. And I'm the ignorant one, he says..> >But if you look at it another way, maybe he's right.Oooh, look what Earl raced to snip out, lest the other see it and snicker.Even more than usual.+ But if you look at it another way, maybe he's right.+ I mean, consider: we all come here to play tetherball with Earl, right.+ He's the ball, and we slap him around and around the pole...+ and yet his head's not spinning.+ OK, the more prosaic explanation is that his head's not spinning+ because everything we say about him goes right over his head.+ (I'm looking at you, Teresita) . Sort of like neutrinos passing+ through lead with zero interactions. So maybe his incomprehension+ is why his head's not spinning.AA

And that's exactly the reason. He continually makes an ass of himselffor our amusement, but he believes he's getting the better of us.

Post by dukeBecause it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on theground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles theearth.

So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately winddown the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?

With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachmentbecomes the string to the earth.

.> > .> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make.> > .> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is.> > .> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?.> > .> Good grief, but you're ignorant..> > Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?).> > "I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"

.> >.> If Duke claimed that the Moon did NOT rotate, then I'd understand that.> >.> he was using a reference frame that was rotating, and he'd have a.> >.> (astonishingly weak) case. But he asserts the Moon DOES rotate, and a.> >.> ball on a string does NOT. And I'm the ignorant one, he says..> >But if you look at it another way, maybe he's right.Oooh, look what Earl raced to snip out, lest the other see it and snicker.Even more than usual.+ But if you look at it another way, maybe he's right.+ I mean, consider: we all come here to play tetherball with Earl, right.+ He's the ball, and we slap him around and around the pole...+ and yet his head's not spinning.+ OK, the more prosaic explanation is that his head's not spinning+ because everything we say about him goes right over his head.+ (I'm looking at you, Teresita) . Sort of like neutrinos passing+ through lead with zero interactions. So maybe his incomprehension+ is why his head's not spinning.

I stand in truth. Besides, you're too dumb to understand rotation.

the dukester, American-American

*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.

Post by dukeBecause it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on theground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles theearth.

So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately winddown the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?

With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachmentbecomes the string to the earth.

.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"

Let me guess. You think the moon string isjust flapping in the breeze on the earth end.

Post by dukeBecause it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on theground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles theearth.

So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately winddown the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?

With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachmentbecomes the string to the earth.

.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"

Let me guess. You think the moon string isjust flapping in the breeze on the earth end.

Post by dukeBecause it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on theground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles theearth.

So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately winddown the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?

With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachmentbecomes the string to the earth.

.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"

Let me guess. You think the moon string isjust flapping in the breeze on the earth end.

Post by dukeBecause it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on theground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles theearth.

So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately winddown the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?

With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachmentbecomes the string to the earth.

.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"

Let me guess. You think the moon string isjust flapping in the breeze on the earth end.

With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachmentbecomes the string to the earth.

.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is

Post by Atlatl Axolotl.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"

Let me guess. You think the moon string isjust flapping in the breeze on the earth end.

Post by dukeBecause it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on theground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles theearth.

So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately winddown the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?

With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachmentbecomes the string to the earth.

.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"

Let me guess. You think the moon string isjust flapping in the breeze on the earth end.

Post by dukeBecause it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on theground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles theearth.

So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately winddown the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?

With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachmentbecomes the string to the earth.

.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"

Let me guess. You think the moon string isjust flapping in the breeze on the earth end.

Post by dukeBecause it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on theground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles theearth.

So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately winddown the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?

With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachmentbecomes the string to the earth.

.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"

Let me guess. You think the moon string isjust flapping in the breeze on the earth end.

Post by dukeBecause it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe youpulling the ball on theground. The moon, sans string, is under independentrotation as it circles theearth.

So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately winddown the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?

With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachmentbecomes the string to the earth.

.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"

Let me guess. You think the moon string isjust flapping in the breeze on the earth end.

.> Here's one of Duke's latest: 'Now come you and see ducked "P".'.> What that means is anybody's guess. :)We need that linguist from "Arrival".(for anyone interested, the short story that was based onwas far far better than the movie)AA

Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.

You are 100% false. The same side of the moon alwaysfaces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!

If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. Andguess what - no strings attached.

And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.If you were an engineer, you would get it.

A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is therotation them. Would it start spinning at the break? Conservation of energyand all that.

The ball would continue spinning as it flies offtangentially, of course. Conservation of angularmomentum, and all that.

Here is where you are fucked up:If the ball didn't rotate, that means the same side ofthe ball would face due north, always, no matter how fastyou spin it. That would wrap the ball up in the stringand it would smack your empty noggin.

If you want a simple experiment that you can do at hometo demonstrate this, i will give you one.

The ball would continue spinning as it flies offtangentially, of course. Conservation of angularmomentum, and all that.If the ball didn't rotate, that means the same side ofthe ball would face due north, always, no matter how fastyou spin it. That would wrap the ball up in the stringand it would smack your empty noggin.If you want a simple experiment that you can do at hometo demonstrate this, i will give you one.

Lol I want to watch Duke hit his self in the head cause he's a rumdumlol.

Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.

You are 100% false. The same side of the moon alwaysfaces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!

If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. Andguess what - no strings attached.

And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.If you were an engineer, you would get it.

A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is therotation them. Would it start spinning at the break? Conservation of energyand all that.

The ball would continue spinning as it flies offtangentially, of course. Conservation of angularmomentum, and all that.

Teresita doesn't understand that.I didn't. The moon is rotating and has been in independent rotation for millionof years. Tidal lock keeps the same face looking at the earth.

Post by Peter PanIf the ball didn't rotate, that means the same side ofthe ball would face due north, always, no matter how fastyou spin it. That would wrap the ball up in the stringand it would smack your empty noggin.

You fool. The ball's hanging on for dear life at the end of the string. Thisis different than the moon which has independent rotation without a string.

the dukester, American-American

*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.

Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.

You are 100% false. The same side of the moon alwaysfaces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!

If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. Andguess what - no strings attached.

And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.If you were an engineer, you would get it.

A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is therotation them. Would it start spinning at the break? Conservation of energyand all that.

The ball would continue spinning as it flies offtangentially, of course. Conservation of angularmomentum, and all that.

Teresita doesn't understand that.

Teresita clearly understands that. You don't.

Post by dukeI didn't. The moon is rotating and has been in independent rotation for millionof years. Tidal lock keeps the same face looking at the earth.

Is the moon "in independent rotation", or is it in tidallock? Those 2 things are mutually exclusive.

The moon's rotation is dependent on its period ofrevolution. It doesn't rotate independently of that.Just like the ball on a string.

Post by Peter PanIf the ball didn't rotate, that means the same side ofthe ball would face due north, always, no matter how fastyou spin it. That would wrap the ball up in the stringand it would smack your empty noggin.

You fool. The ball's hanging on for dear life at the end of the string. Thisis different than the moon which has independent rotation without a string.

Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.

You are 100% false. The same side of the moon alwaysfaces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!

If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. Andguess what - no strings attached.

And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.If you were an engineer, you would get it.

A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is therotation them. Would it start spinning at the break? Conservation of energyand all that.

The ball would continue spinning as it flies offtangentially, of course. Conservation of angularmomentum, and all that.

Teresita doesn't understand that.

Teresita clearly understands that. You don't.

Post by dukeI didn't. The moon is rotating and has been in independent rotation for millionof years. Tidal lock keeps the same face looking at the earth.

Is the moon "in independent rotation", or is it in tidallock? Those 2 things are mutually exclusive.The moon's rotation is dependent on its period ofrevolution. It doesn't rotate independently of that.Just like the ball on a string.

Post by Peter PanIf the ball didn't rotate, that means the same side ofthe ball would face due north, always, no matter how fastyou spin it. That would wrap the ball up in the stringand it would smack your empty noggin.

You fool. The ball's hanging on for dear life at the end of the string. Thisis different than the moon which has independent rotation without a string.

So? Their motions are the same. One rotation perrevolution.You don't understand any of this, that's why you can'texplain it.LOL. Your a rumdum.

Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.

You are 100% false. The same side of the moon alwaysfaces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!

If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. Andguess what - no strings attached.

And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.If you were an engineer, you would get it.

A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is therotation them. Would it start spinning at the break? Conservation of energyand all that.

The ball would continue spinning as it flies offtangentially, of course. Conservation of angularmomentum, and all that.

Teresita doesn't understand that.

Teresita clearly understands that. You don't.

Post by dukeI didn't. The moon is rotating and has been in independent rotation for millionof years. Tidal lock keeps the same face looking at the earth.

Is the moon "in independent rotation", or is it in tidallock? Those 2 things are mutually exclusive.The moon's rotation is dependent on its period ofrevolution. It doesn't rotate independently of that.Just like the ball on a string.

Post by Peter PanIf the ball didn't rotate, that means the same side ofthe ball would face due north, always, no matter how fastyou spin it. That would wrap the ball up in the stringand it would smack your empty noggin.

You fool. The ball's hanging on for dear life at the end of the string. Thisis different than the moon which has independent rotation without a string.

So? Their motions are the same. One rotation perrevolution.You don't understand any of this, that's why you can'texplain it.LOL. Your a rumdum.

LOL! Yep.

And the queen of jerkoffs, one fairy gman, speaks up and shows his ass..

the dukester, American-American

*****The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,but to form, not to teach but to live.

Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.

You are 100% false. The same side of the moon alwaysfaces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!

If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. Andguess what - no strings attached.

And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.If you were an engineer, you would get it.

A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is therotation them. Would it start spinning at the break? Conservation of energyand all that.

The ball would continue spinning as it flies offtangentially, of course. Conservation of angularmomentum, and all that.

Teresita doesn't understand that.

Teresita clearly understands that. You don't.

Post by dukeI didn't. The moon is rotating and has been in independent rotation for millionof years. Tidal lock keeps the same face looking at the earth.

Is the moon "in independent rotation", or is it in tidallock? Those 2 things are mutually exclusive.The moon's rotation is dependent on its period ofrevolution. It doesn't rotate independently of that.Just like the ball on a string.

Post by Peter PanIf the ball didn't rotate, that means the same side ofthe ball would face due north, always, no matter how fastyou spin it. That would wrap the ball up in the stringand it would smack your empty noggin.

You fool. The ball's hanging on for dear life at the end of the string. Thisis different than the moon which has independent rotation without a string.

So? Their motions are the same. One rotation perrevolution.You don't understand any of this, that's why you can'texplain it.LOL. Your a rumdum.

LOL! Yep.

And the queen of jerkoffs, one fairy gman, speaks up and shows his ass..

Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.

You are 100% false. The same side of the moon alwaysfaces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!

If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. Andguess what - no strings attached.

And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.If you were an engineer, you would get it.

A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is therotation them. Would it start spinning at the break? Conservation of energyand all that.

The ball would continue spinning as it flies offtangentially, of course. Conservation of angularmomentum, and all that.

Teresita doesn't understand that.

Teresita clearly understands that. You don't.

Post by dukeI didn't. The moon is rotating and has been in independent rotation for millionof years. Tidal lock keeps the same face looking at the earth.

Is the moon "in independent rotation", or is it in tidallock? Those 2 things are mutually exclusive.The moon's rotation is dependent on its period ofrevolution. It doesn't rotate independently of that.Just like the ball on a string.

Post by Peter PanIf the ball didn't rotate, that means the same side ofthe ball would face due north, always, no matter how fastyou spin it. That would wrap the ball up in the stringand it would smack your empty noggin.

You fool. The ball's hanging on for dear life at the end of the string. Thisis different than the moon which has independent rotation without a string.

So? Their motions are the same. One rotation perrevolution.You don't understand any of this, that's why you can'texplain it.LOL. Your a rumdum.

LOL! Yep.

And the queen of jerkoffs, one fairy gman, speaks up and shows his ass..

Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.

You are 100% false. The same side of the moon alwaysfaces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!

If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. Andguess what - no strings attached.

And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.If you were an engineer, you would get it.

A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is therotation them. Would it start spinning at the break? Conservation of energyand all that.

The ball would continue spinning as it flies offtangentially, of course. Conservation of angularmomentum, and all that.

Teresita doesn't understand that.

Teresita clearly understands that. You don't.

Post by dukeI didn't. The moon is rotating and has been in independent rotation for millionof years. Tidal lock keeps the same face looking at the earth.

Is the moon "in independent rotation", or is it in tidallock? Those 2 things are mutually exclusive.The moon's rotation is dependent on its period ofrevolution. It doesn't rotate independently of that.Just like the ball on a string.

Post by Peter PanIf the ball didn't rotate, that means the same side ofthe ball would face due north, always, no matter how fastyou spin it. That would wrap the ball up in the stringand it would smack your empty noggin.

You fool. The ball's hanging on for dear life at the end of the string. Thisis different than the moon which has independent rotation without a string.

So? Their motions are the same. One rotation perrevolution.You don't understand any of this, that's why you can'texplain it.LOL. Your a rumdum.

LOL! Yep.

And the queen of jerkoffs, one fairy gman, speaks up and shows his ass..the dukester, American-American

Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.

You are 100% false. The same side of the moon alwaysfaces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!

If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. Andguess what - no strings attached.

And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.If you were an engineer, you would get it.

A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is therotation them. Would it start spinning at the break? Conservation of energyand all that.

The ball would continue spinning as it flies offtangentially, of course. Conservation of angularmomentum, and all that.

Teresita doesn't understand that.

Teresita clearly understands that. You don't.

Post by dukeI didn't. The moon is rotating and has been in independent rotation for millionof years. Tidal lock keeps the same face looking at the earth.

Is the moon "in independent rotation", or is it in tidallock? Those 2 things are mutually exclusive.

The moon is in independent rotation such that "tidal lock" keeps the face ofrotation always looking at the earth.

Post by Peter PanThe moon's rotation is dependent on its period ofrevolution. It doesn't rotate independently of that.Just like the ball on a string.

The moon is independently rotating but in tidal lock speed that keeps the sameface pointed at the earth. A ball on a string has no independent rotation. It'sjust circling the spinner..

Post by Peter PanIf the ball didn't rotate, that means the same side ofthe ball would face due north, always, no matter how fastyou spin it. That would wrap the ball up in the stringand it would smack your empty noggin.

You fool. The ball's hanging on for dear life at the end of the string. Thisis different than the moon which has independent rotation without a string.

So? Their motions are the same. One rotation perrevolution.

Nope, no independent rotation of the ball. It's looking at the spinner becausethe string keeps it that way.

Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.

You are 100% false. The same side of the moon alwaysfaces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!

If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. Andguess what - no strings attached.

And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.If you were an engineer, you would get it.

A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is therotation them. Would it start spinning at the break? Conservation of energyand all that.

The ball would continue spinning as it flies offtangentially, of course. Conservation of angularmomentum, and all that.

Teresita doesn't understand that.

Teresita clearly understands that. You don't.

Post by dukeI didn't. The moon is rotating and has been in independent rotation for millionof years. Tidal lock keeps the same face looking at the earth.

Is the moon "in independent rotation", or is it in tidallock? Those 2 things are mutually exclusive.

The moon is in independent rotation such that "tidal lock" keeps the face ofrotation always looking at the earth.

Post by Peter PanThe moon's rotation is dependent on its period ofrevolution. It doesn't rotate independently of that.Just like the ball on a string.

The moon is independently rotating but in tidal lock speed that keeps the sameface pointed at the earth. A ball on a string has no independent rotation. It'sjust circling the spinner..

Post by Peter PanIf the ball didn't rotate, that means the same side ofthe ball would face due north, always, no matter how fastyou spin it. That would wrap the ball up in the stringand it would smack your empty noggin.

You fool. The ball's hanging on for dear life at the end of the string. Thisis different than the moon which has independent rotation without a string.

So? Their motions are the same. One rotation perrevolution.

Nope, no independent rotation of the ball. It's looking at the spinner becausethe string keeps it that way.

FWIW, I don't think this "duke" is really "Duke". Jeez, Earl must have been in his '60s twenty years ago. Although "duke" posts up the same kind of idiocy, I suspect he's probably not the original guy. If the real Duke is still alive, he's probably in some hospice having a nurse shoveling the tapioca into his festering gob.

If he's spending much of his final 20 years on Usenet posting nothingbut "Strawman" and "Buckwheat" and "jdyke" and "Heeheehee" then that isits own built-in punishment. Very Tao. Even more pathetic is he thinkshis god will extend his pathetic now indefinitely as a reward.

Say what?I haven't used the buckwheat reference, a black tv star of yesteryear, for over5 years now. And I can't say that I myself used "strawman" in my own posts.Maybe I did.

You stopped mentioning the character Buckwheat because lots of people kept pointing out how obviously bigoted your use of the name was. It wasn't theresponse you wanted.

Nope, at the start of his 2nd term.

Jdyke" was a expressed interest of her own. And "heeheehee" is a great way > to laugh at the stupidity of others.

No, it wasn't, liar. Jeanne simply said that, if she had been gay, shewouldn't be ashamed of it.

Put another way, she didn't mind it. So I engaged her.

When you go heeheehee , you sound like a mad scientist in an old sciencefiction movie.

FWIW, I don't think this "duke" is really "Duke". Jeez, Earl must have been in his '60s twenty years ago. Although "duke" posts up the same kind of idiocy, I suspect he's probably not the original guy. If the real Duke is still alive, he's probably in some hospice having a nurse shoveling the tapioca into his festering gob.

If he's spending much of his final 20 years on Usenet posting nothingbut "Strawman" and "Buckwheat" and "jdyke" and "Heeheehee" then that isits own built-in punishment. Very Tao. Even more pathetic is he thinkshis god will extend his pathetic now indefinitely as a reward.

Say what?I haven't used the buckwheat reference, a black tv star of yesteryear, for over5 years now. And I can't say that I myself used "strawman" in my own posts.Maybe I did.

You stopped mentioning the character Buckwheat because lots of people kept pointing out how obviously bigoted your use of the name was. It wasn't theresponse you wanted.

FWIW, I don't think this "duke" is really "Duke". Jeez, Earl must have been in his '60s twenty years ago. Although "duke" posts up the same kind of idiocy, I suspect he's probably not the original guy. If the real Duke is still alive, he's probably in some hospice having a nurse shoveling the tapioca into his festering gob.

If he's spending much of his final 20 years on Usenet posting nothingbut "Strawman" and "Buckwheat" and "jdyke" and "Heeheehee" then that isits own built-in punishment. Very Tao. Even more pathetic is he thinkshis god will extend his pathetic now indefinitely as a reward.

Say what?I haven't used the buckwheat reference, a black tv star of yesteryear, for over5 years now. And I can't say that I myself used "strawman" in my own posts.Maybe I did.

You stopped mentioning the character Buckwheat because lots of people kept pointing out how obviously bigoted your use of the name was. It wasn't theresponse you wanted.

FWIW, I don't think this "duke" is really "Duke". Jeez, Earl must have been in his '60s twenty years ago. Although "duke" posts up the same kind of idiocy, I suspect he's probably not the original guy. If the real Duke is still alive, he's probably in some hospice having a nurse shoveling the tapioca into his festering gob.

If he's spending much of his final 20 years on Usenet posting nothingbut "Strawman" and "Buckwheat" and "jdyke" and "Heeheehee" then that isits own built-in punishment. Very Tao. Even more pathetic is he thinkshis god will extend his pathetic now indefinitely as a reward.

Say what?I haven't used the buckwheat reference, a black tv star of yesteryear, for over5 years now. And I can't say that I myself used "strawman" in my own posts.Maybe I did.

You stopped mentioning the character Buckwheat because lots of people kept pointing out how obviously bigoted your use of the name was. It wasn't theresponse you wanted.